complainant having been struck on the head twice with a knob-kierie and once in the

ribs, there is nothing on record regarding the force applied and whether injuries were

inflicted.

[7] In The State v Sylvia Alweendo3, a judgment I wrote, the following was said at p

2, para [4]:

“Where an accused is charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the bodily harm intended must be “really serious bodily harm” as was said in Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith, [1960] 3 All ER 161 (HL) at 171. What is required is that there must have been the intent to do more harm than inflicting the “casual and comparatively insignificant and superficial injuries which ordinarily follow upon an assault.” See: S v Mbelu, 1966 (1) PH H 176 (N). This view is consistent with what was said by this Court in S v Tazama 1992 NR 190 namely that, the fact that a complainant suffers serious injury as a result of an assault is not in itself evidence of the intention to do grievous bodily harm.”

[8] Therefore, in casu, from the answers given by the accused during questioning bythe court a quo, it is clear that the accused did not admit that he had acted with therequired intent and hence, could not have been convicted on his mere plea of guilty.Had the magistrate – as it appears from his reply – inferred from the accused’s answerthat he became angry when assaulting the complainant and thus acted with intent tocause grievous bodily harm, then he misdirected himself. In the circumstances, theconviction has to be set aside.

[9] In the result, the Court makes the following order:

1. The conviction and sentence are set aside.

2. The matter is remitted to the Magistrate’s Court, Tsumeb in terms of s 312 (1) of Act 51 of 1977 with the direction to comply with the provisions of s 112 (1)(b) or to act in terms of s 113, as the case may be.